.NET Framework v2.0 --> 2002/2003 support?

T

ThePentiumGuy

Senior Contributor
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
1,113
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
Will Microsoft "release" the .NET Framework v2.0 for 2002/2003 ? I mean, they didn't even allow .NET Framework v1.1 for 2002..... Good marketing strategy I guess. :mad: Sucks if they don't give support for 2002/2003.
 
neodatatype said:
mmmh... I'm experiencing a little time-gap... I thinked to be in 2005 by now ;)
Click to expand...
The post is regarding .Net Framework 2 support in Visual Studio 2002 or 2003 ;)

And yes i would agree that if VS 2003 wont support the Framework version 2 it will be a shame! But the only thing im looking forward to in Version 2 is the added support for network connectivity.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean intergrate the .net 2.0 framework into a 2002/2003 VS.net version?
VS.net is like any software product as the complexity increases you loose compatibility with older versions.
 
ThePentiumGuy said:
they didn't even allow .NET Framework v1.1 for 2002
Click to expand...
Exactly. I don't see it happening. Anyways, many features in the 2002/2003 IDE were designed to suit the .Net Framework 1.0/1.1, and new changes would probably break compatability.
 
Just being able to code for the framework, ie intellisense picks up errors and code completes. Oh and you can target 2.0 for compilation.

It should all just be settings pointing to different paths and a library for the code.

We're not talking about VB's break'n'continue or C#'s refactoring tools which are part of the IDE, but just being able to use the framework.
 
But the VB.Net 2003 IDE isn't programmed to deal with things like generics and operator overloading. I don't know how these are handled in Vs 2005, but I think they might cause problems in the 2003 IDE.
 
I can't see them cutting their own revenue stream by allowing the existing IDE to work with the new framework. They are giving away the SDK etc for free as it is.
Visual Studio 2005 has had a lot of work put into it - they will want some return on their investment...
 
PlausiblyDamp said:
I can't see them cutting their own revenue stream by allowing the existing IDE to work with the new framework. They are giving away the SDK etc for free as it is.
Visual Studio 2005 has had a lot of work put into it - they will want some return on their investment...
Click to expand...
True, and from what i have seen so far it will be worth the cost.
 
PlausiblyDamp said:
I can't see them cutting their own revenue stream by allowing the existing IDE to work with the new framework. They are giving away the SDK etc for free as it is.
Visual Studio 2005 has had a lot of work put into it - they will want some return on their investment...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't have 2003 installed at the moment, only 2005.

For a debug, you can target another application instead of opening the one you're working on and send it command lines. So you could target Mono or 1.0/1.1 just fine.

For a compile (not debug) you have the option of adding Build Events which run macros under certain conditions. This too could target another command line compiler.

You would be getting 2005 intellisense and code warnings/errors, but you could target other frameworks.

Does 2003 have the same options for compile? If so you can target the other frameworks on a build.
 
Just to clear up a few things.

VS.NET 2003 is ( in parts) build ontop of the FW1.1, so it would be a real mess to use a different
FW inside of VS.NET.
Everybody is complaining about sw-stability, but wants all the funktions in one piece.

So in general there will be no support for building fw2.0 Code in VS 2003!
 
will be the same that happened with VS 2002 and 2003, you can't use FW 1.1 in side VS 2002, but you've compatibility in 2003 for FW 1.0
In VS 2005 same thing, you'll have compatibility with FW 1.0 and 1.1 but you won't be able to use FW 2.0 inside VS 2003 or 2002. Anyway, why should I worry about using FW 2.0 in VS 2003?? if I upgrade to 2005 I'll upgrade all my apps, when I did it from 2002 to 2003 was simple.
 
Back
Top